Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (314015)	12/23/2024 10:03:01 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 364175

You spoke of a citizen having rights as some criterion in applying the right to life. I simply fed back to you the implication of your argument. A word salad mumbo jumbo. The right to life is a self evident right. Giving a mother the unrestricted right to kill an unborn son or daughter is contrary to the self evident right of a human life. To me it is self evident that no living human today does not have forbears who raped or was the product of incest. Rape far far more common than incest in numbers. All have 2 to the N +- i forbears And what power of ten is N. So rape or incest do not outweigh the right to life. You want to parse some meaning of when a unique human life begins. It begins at conception. It may or man not implant. It may have a genetic defect that causes it to die. Ultimately we all have DNA the will become defective over time and we will die. Or some mishap or murder will kill us. It the case of mother or child survival I would give the mother the right to chose. But there are vows where a woman surrenders even that right to her husband. If the vow is in place then the morality is defined. On the other hand I would always save my wife of 50+ years. I also have no problem with any prenup exceptions of whatever.